That's a great article, Joe!  This is the kind of thing that should first be taught in elementary school (not as formal logic or epistomological theory, but at the level of "That's not thinking clearly, Johnny, you know that....  We always have to see what else would change."

I see a spectrum of dishonesty.  At one end is the most dishonest - someone who clearly knows about the negative net-net effect of a change but proposes it anyway, and, if need be, lies and argues against the unseen effects to come; this person usually has an ulterior motive they keep hidden.  At the other end of the dishonest spectrum are those who might feel a twinge of what is commonly called "conscience" and is actually just the portion of the subconcious that deals with integration and identifying relationships and is trying to tell the consciousness, "Hey, there is a problem you need to look at - there is more to this - this isn't right," but they choose to blank that out and not focus on anything that takes away from the desired "one thing change".

You wrote, "Because the causal link is indirect, people view it as not strictly necessary. Which means they can make their single change and not be morally culpable for the indirect consequences."  That is a brilliant observation- the link between choosing an epistemological approach and a sense of needing to stay 'moral' - as if morality could be maintained by pretending to an error in logic.

I see the psychological process as something like this: They sense the conflict between getting a "single change benefit" and the possibility of unseen effects down the road.... and if the causal link starts to feel too substantial in their mind, they adopt a fuzzy, conscious rationalization that counters the causal link (such as it is not the same people doing the single change that would do the down-the-road-effects so they aren't 'really' related, or "anything is possible") and now they can use the non-contradition rule - choosing to accept the "indirect consequence" or "anything is possible" over the "strictly necessary", and it is in effect blanked out.  (But you can't really fool yourself, so at some level, certainly the level of the formation of positive or negative changes to the self-esteem, they know).  

The only thing they fully accept is that there cannot be a contradiction and the question is what do they throw out - the causal necessity (which lets them have the single change and pretend its okay), or do they throw out the single change (which they feel an emotional pull for).  They know which side their emotions are on, and so they manufacture a moral fantasy about the nature of indirect consequences and pretend that they now aren't really blanking out anything. And there you go, in a tiny fraction of a second they set the course for their actions and arguments.

Excellent post, I think you bring up a lot of thought-provoking ideas.  I've always been fascinated with the idea of the Broken Window fallacy, and the lack of creativity people show with regards to the unseen.  I think you could write a whole book about how other big concepts are related to this, but here are my mind's quick ramblings:  

I think you could work this idea into the nature of momentum in society as well.  Often times, people think they can be inconsistent with policies just in one instance, without considering the momentum that this inconsistency creates and the precedent that is set.

Examples of this:

1) Inconsistency in advocacy of freedom of speech and privacy creates the precedent for it to further erode in the future.   Why is it that in the case of Phil Robertson, his livelihood should not be threatened based on opinions he gave in public, but in the case of Donald Sterling (a-hole that he may be), we can demand retribution for something he said in the privacy of his own home?

2) Military:  Anytime our military uses force, the momentum of the military industrial complex is enhanced.  Often times people think it is only temporary, but this doesn’t end up being the case. 

3) Laws:  How often do people who are otherwise small government advocates, and who would easily laugh at how many stupid laws and regulations we have, utter the phrase “there oughtta be a law”. Just in this one case though!...

4) Gay marriage:  I’ve always found it interesting that many religious people want to deny the government’s ability to recognize the contract of two people, yet they want to be left completely free from the government’s influence of their own beliefs and rituals.  They set the precedent to use force when they are in the majority, so perhaps they should expect the same treatment the next time they are not in the majority!

5) Overtun Window:  Implementing policy without regards to the momentum it will produce creates a new normal, where policies that would currently be abhorrent become more acceptable in the future.